Move Google Doc to trash

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds context annotations cannot convey: the deletion is reversible ('NOT permanently deleted'), the recovery window (30 days in Drive trash), and an accepted-input restriction (Docs files only). This is exactly the behavioral detail an agent needs before calling a destructive tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and mechanism, then recovery behavior, then scope limits, then calling conditions. No redundant restatement of the title or schema.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the definition covers reversibility, recovery window, accepted input type, and invocation preconditions. Annotations carry the safety profile and the description fills in everything else needed to call it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single documentId parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the URL-extraction hint. The description adds nothing further about the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Specific verb+resource ('Delete a Google Doc') with an immediate clarification of mechanism ('by moving it to the user's Google Drive trash'). The scope constraint 'Only Google Docs files are accepted' distinguishes it from sibling text/format tools like delete_text, and the trash semantics separate it from any hard-delete operation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives an explicit precondition ('Only call this when the user clearly asked to delete this specific document') and a when-not branch ('if it is ambiguous which document is meant, ask the user first'). It does not name sibling alternatives such as delete_text for removing content inside a doc, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.